on TRA disclosure

related to my previous discussion on membership requirements for Tripoli certification, someone posed the challenge that I find a license or
certification process that did not require renewal or "maintenance" feess
in response to that challenge, and also to acknowledge a request I made to Tripoli HQ for BoD minutes which was rebuffed, I did find an interesting contrast with another non-profit amateur/hobby organization as follows:
American Radio Relay League, Inc (ARRL)
here the "certification" involves a neglible fee for testing, membership is NOT required to obtain or maintain a license, and the license itself is free (ARRL VEC-coordinated Amateur Radio test sessions fee is $12, the Amateur License is exempt from FCC fees)
note also that organization "disclosures" are freely available online to the general public. For example:
Annual Reports http://www.arrl.org/announce/annualreport
Board and Committee Reports (including minutes) http://www.arrl.org/announce
Regulatory Reports http://www.arrl.org/announce/regulatory
to contrast that with Tripoli
"certification" requires continuous membership at $70 the first year and $60 all subsequent years indefinitely
organization "disclosures" are limited to annual board minutes and reports only, available only to members by way of the Tripoli Report, but only for years of your membership. Prior years minutes are available only if the BoD deems the stated purpose "proper", and only then at the organizations headquarters in Orem, Utah during regular business hours, and photocopying is prohibited.
[ see the TRA HQ rebuff of my request at http://tinyurl.com/3c8a3 ]
this, despite the "Revised Model Nonprofit Corporation Act" stating that
- the following records must be made available to members
Section 16.01. Corporate Records
(e) A corporation shall keep a copy of the following records at its principal office:
(1) its articles or restated articles of incorporation and all amendments to them currently in effect; (2) its bylaws or restated bylaws and all amendments to them currently in effect; (3) resolutions adopted by its board of directors relating to the characteristics, qualifications, rights, limitations and obligations of members or any class or category of members; (4) the minutes of all meetings of members and records of all actions approved by the members for the past three years; (5) all written communications to members generally within the past three years, including the financial statements furnished for the past three years under section 16.20; (6) a list of the names and business or home addresses of its current directors and officers; and (7) its most recent annual report delivered to the secretary of state under section 16.22.
- that the members are entitled to make copies of these materials
Section 16.02. Inspection of Records by Members.
(a) Subject to subsection (e) and section 16.03(c), a member is entitled to inspect and copy, at a reasonable time and location specified by the corporation, any of the records of the corporation described in section 16.01(e) if the member gives the corporation written notice or a written demand at least five business days before the date on which the member wishes to inspect and copy.
- that reasonable requests for photographic copies should be provided at reasonable cost
Section 16.03. Scope of Inspection Rights.
(b) The right to copy records under section 16.02 includes, if reasonable, the right to receive copies made by photographic, xerographic, or other means. (c) The corporation may impose a reasonable charge, covering the costs of labor and material, for copies of any documents provided to the member. The charge may not exceed the estimated cost of production or reproduction of the records.
- not that determination of what constitutes "reasonable" does NOT include the following
Section 16.02. Inspection of Records by Members (c)
(1) the member's demand is made in good faith and for a proper purpose; (2) the member describes with reasonable particularity the purpose and the records the member desires to inspect; and (3) the records are directly connected with this purpose.
which conditions do NOT apply to materials NOT found in Section 16.01. Corporate Records (e), above
[ also see Section 16.04. Court-Ordered Inspection ]
references:
Subchapter A. Records http://www.paperglyphs.com/nporegulation/documents/model_npo_corp_act.html#16A [ http://tinyurl.com/yt6wk ]
Revised Model Nonprofit Corporation Act (1987) http://www.paperglyphs.com/nporegulation/documents/model_npo_corp_act.html [ http://tinyurl.com/2d6dm ]
- iz
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
1) The license is issued by the FCC and not the ARRL. 2) The license is valid for only 10 years. (I have one. KC5WSV) 3) The rules are in fact federal law and not from the ARRL.
Comparing TRA/NAR to the ARRL is like comparing apples to rocks.
--
David W. Schultz
http://home.earthlink.net/~david.schultz
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David Schultz wrote:

Absolutely. I have an FCC amateur radio license too, KC9FAC. I am not a member of ARRL (although I am considering it). Although I do not have exact figures available, something like less than 1/3 of licensed radio amateurs belong to ARRL.
The rules are under 47 CFR Part 97.
The only way a comparison would be valid to rocketry is if you were certified directly by a government agency, say BATFE. Membership in NAR/TRA would be optional.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I should add that tests used to be given directly by the FCC, but in order to reduce their workload, the FCC allows the ARRL to give the tests through the VE program. The tests themselves, as well as the other paperwork you fill out, are all from the FCC, not the ARRL.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David Schultz wrote:

yes, and the FCC charges nothing. And ARRL charges a neglible amount for the administering the test

yes, and renews for no cost (at the present time)

yes, and the ARRL does not attempt to impose conditions in excess of federal law. Unfortunately the same cannot be said of Tripoli.

no, it is not
TRA/NAR impose conditions in excess of regulation, conditions which have associated costs. ARRL does not.
TRA refuses to disclose material from the corporate record without the uncertain 'deeming' of proper purpose, and uses access at Orem, Utah as a disincentive, and even then does not allow photocopying. ARRL provids the material freely to the general public.
the latter TRA "policy" in complete contrast to the Revised Model Nonprofit Corporations Act, which requires that the material be made available for photocopying, and provides for the request for inspection to be satisfied with the organization providing the copies at reasonable cost.
clearly Tripoli is using the letter of Alaskan Statutes to prevent access to materials as straightforward as board minutes. This, from a 501(c)3, which ostensibly functions as a public trust.
what infromation contained in the minutes could be so injurious if disclosed as to elicit such behavior, I wonder
I find TRA's position extremely suspicious, especially since I offered in advance to defray all reasonable costs associated with photocopying
(BTW, financial disclosures can be obtained directly from the IRS at very reasonable cost - so a comparable policy of 'inspection at HQ upon approval of reasons, but with copying prohibited' is moot. In fact, by making comprehensive requests for information from the IRS with the stated reason of "to establish/rule out impropriety" could very well raise an eyebrow. I'm sure that it would be no inconvenience to them whatsoever to send an auditor to Orem for a little look-see if they are so inclined.)
- iz
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
> Comparing TRA/NAR to the ARRL is like comparing apples to rocks.
Another reason this is true is because TRA is like a poorly run mom & pop grocery store, NAR is like a well run mom & pop grocery, and the ARRL in comparison is like a huge supermarket. And they can deliver their magazine on time, and have done so for 75 years. I also belong to the EAA, and that is a prime example of a well-run organization.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<< TRA/NAR impose conditions in excess of regulation, conditions which have associated costs.>>
No, they do NOT. But if you prefer ARRL over TRA, you're more than welcome to stick with them. An amateur radio club would be a more appropriate choice for you anyway since you are not even engaged in high power rocketry and refused to be certified.
<< clearly Tripoli is using the letter of Alaskan Statutes to prevent access to materials as straightforward as board minutes. >>
So you're saying their actions are in accordance with the statutes under which TRA was incorporated, right?
<< I find TRA's position extremely suspicious, especially since I offered in advance to defray all reasonable costs associated with photocopying >>
I find your request for this information to be extremely suspicious. You have no legitimate need for this information, you have made it very clear that you are opposed to TRA in every way, you don't even fly high power, and you've made numerous unfounded accusations against TRA and members of the BOD, as well as comments hinting at a desire to stir up some kind of trouble for TRA. Including this comment:
<< In fact, by making comprehensive requests for information from the IRS with the stated reason of "to establish/rule out impropriety" could very well raise an eyebrow. I'm sure that it would be no inconvenience to them whatsoever to send an auditor to Orem for a little look-see if they are so inclined.)>>
BTW, if you're weren't a clueless Johnny Come Lately you would have known that TRA has already been audited by the IRS, which found no problems.
So go get someone with a crowbar to pry your nose out of Jerry's backside, and go do something constructive with your life if that's even possible.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

federal law.
this is incorrect. the ARRL has supplied the FCC with the Band Plans from day one and any lobbying to change them comes from the ARRL. whether to make the band plans less restrictive or more restrictive will have major input from the committies at ARRL. So they help MAKE federal law.
40 meters really needs a band plan change so I can talk to europe without having to do split, since europe talks right in the US CW only part of the band. They are working on changing this soon.
Other start up Ham orgs have tried to get voices in the Amateur communitiy and run VE programs etc. They have not been very successful.
Art
K8XG

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Good point. But I thought band plans were coordinated by the IARU, not the FCC per se.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Actually it's a pretty good comparison. let NAR/TRA handle the testing and certification of HPR fliers, and keep the JBGTs busy protecting us form terrorists and abusive government agents.
    Bob Kaplow    NAR # 18L    TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD"         >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle:    http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org
Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

<<Actually it's a pretty good comparison. let NAR/TRA handle the testing and certification of HPR fliers, and keep the JBGTs busy protecting us form terrorists and abusive government agents. >>
That's exactly what the orgs are doing. If private organizations like NAR/TRA were not providing certification, you'd have to go through the government agencies to get permits for rocketry activities.
The notion that all rocketry was completely legal and unregulated until the orgs came along and "added" all these restrictions is completely inaccurate. NAR/TRA worked to create ways for hobbyists to legally engage in certain types of rocketry activities without having to meet all the stringent requirements of professional rocketry.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (RayDunakin) wrote:

False. There is no certification requirement except that imposed or promulgated by the clubs themselves.

Everything you say is false.

--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
RayDunakin wrote:

and TRA/NAR certification has what to do with compelling perpetual memnership?
- iz
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<< and TRA/NAR certification has what to do with compelling perpetual memnership? >>
No one's compelling you to be a member. If you don't like TRA/NAR, you can go fly rockets under the amateur or professional rocketry regs. Or in your case, just continue _not_ flying rockets.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
RayDunakin wrote:

because of NFPA requirements, they have no option beyond maintaining perpetual membership in either TRA or NAR, apart from disgarding the umbrella provided under NFPA codes where adopted and seeking alternative means to comply with other applicable laws as you say
but this choice is unnecessary, and exists solely because of organizational policy to compell membership as a requirement for maintaining certification.
actually there are two distinct issues here. The first is that indy fliers may have their own insurance, perhaps both personal liability and an indy group policy similar to MDRA's. In this case, neither the TRA or NAR insurance is necessary.
the second is that the organizations may impose additional conditions [beyond that which is required by NFPA codes] on rocketry activities which are unacceptable to indy fliers. Yet the membership of both orgs requires that those conditions be complied with.
TRA from http://www.tripoli.org/join.shtml
"I agree to pursue my advanced rocketry activities in conformance with the Association's By-laws and Safety Code, and that I will be an active member of the Association to the best of my ability"
NAR from https://secure.consumersinterest.com/nar/narjoin.html
"I pledge to conduct all my sport rocketry activities in compliance with the NAR Model Rocket Safety Code and the NAR High Power Safety Code."
conformance to these conditions, which are subject to change by the organizations and which can be in excess of the NFPA code requirements, is not required by law in NFPA adoptive states. Yet the organizations would have indy fliers subjected to them regardless. This is not consistent with the stated mission, [ from http://www.tripoli.org ]
"dedicated to the advancement and operation of amateur high power rocketry"
it is dedicated to the advancement of an organizational agenda, to be imposed on everyone seeking to comply with certification requirements in NFPA adoptive states, and seeking to obtain motors as certified flyers from the motor dealer network
if indy flyers are not using TRA/NAR launch facilities or insurance, what benefits are you providing that they should be compelled to pay for? Especially if they do not agree with your policies regarding regulation? They want only to satisfy the conditions imposed by the NFPA code in adoptive states so that they can obtain motors and fly legally. Those conditions are as follows.
from NFPA 1127, 2002 Ed. [excerpted for editorial review] -- 5.4.1 Certification of a user shall require both of the following: (1) Proof that the user is at least 18 years old (2) Proof that the user possesses a level of knowledge and competence in handling, storing, and using a high power solid-propellant rocket motor and high power rockets that is acceptable to the certifying organization
--
anything else is superfluous to meeting the legal requirements, and
should not be compelled
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<< because of NFPA requirements, they have no option beyond maintaining perpetual membership in either TRA or NAR, apart from disgarding the umbrella provided under NFPA codes where adopted and seeking alternative means to comply with other applicable laws as you say.>>
So you agree that there _are_ other options for doing rocketry, you just don't like them?
<<actually there are two distinct issues here. The first is that indy fliers may have their own insurance, perhaps both personal liability and an indy group policy similar to MDRA's. In this case, neither the TRA or NAR insurance is necessary. >>
An individual's private insurance won't protect TRA/NAR from liability.
<< the second is that the organizations may impose additional conditions [beyond that which is required by NFPA codes] on rocketry activities which are unacceptable to indy fliers. >>
Tough.
<< if indy flyers are not using TRA/NAR launch facilities or insurance, what benefits are you providing that they should be compelled to pay for?>>
The national orgs are the ones who did all the groundwork to make these types of rocketry activities legal, without the burden of having to abide by regulations for amateur or professional rocketry. That is a benefit and deserves support, but of course you wouldn't understand that. Certification is itself a benefit of membership.
<< Especially if they do not agree with your policies regarding regulation? >>
If they don't agree, they can start their own club and set their own policies.
<< this aspect of user cert policy [membership requirement] is one that illustrates TRA hypocrisy in representing themselves as advocates of "rocketry", when in fact they promote a Tripoli agenda at the expense of others. >>
It's not a "Tripoli" agenda, it's a "high power rocketry" agenda. As you yourself have pointed out, the purpose of TRA is "...the advancement and operation of amateur high power rocketry".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (RayDunakin) wrote:

There are no other options to doing "High Power Rocketry" per NFPA-1127.

This attitude is why TRA does not act in the public interest.
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
RayDunakin wrote:

what liability? is that the same liability a DMV examiner has when a licensed driver has an accident? or the same liability the states licensing board has when a professional's work results in property loss or injury?
that argument doesn't wash
if the certification was honest, and the flyer was not a TRA/NAR (and not even a member) there is no liability for the org.
or are you saying that there is a liability for the org when even paid members engage in indy activities, which by virue of not being under org supervision are suspect; or should all such be entirely prohibited under org rules so as to limit the orgs liability?
how does paying the org membership dues lessen their liability, Ray? Does TRA insurance cover indy practices by members conducted in compliance with NFPA codes but NOT conducted in accordance with "superfluous" TRA rules? No, it does not! The insurance is contingent upon the orgs safety code.
so your claim of liability is a farce, Ray. It is only about money.

spoken as a true rocketry advocate ... NOT!

ahem! John Cato was sent to the NFPA so that his credentials and professional integrity as a Registered Architect (someone intimately familiar with Building and Fire codes) could be used as leverage to gain NFPA recognition for TRA. This strategy was successful.
that was, of couse, before TRA decided that JC's integrity was inconvenient when they wanted to publish fraudulent motor certification lists. That was a bit too much integrity for their liking!
TRA did not do "all the groundwork to make these types of rocketry activities legal". Individuals did. Where are they now, Ray? How many have been used and discarded when their purpose was served?
review your history, Ray. Your naivete is shocking!

TRA/NAR for all practical purposes currently hold a joint monopoly on user (and motor) certification. Rather than conduct those certifications in compliance with NFPA codes (law only in adoptive states) to allow rocketry to flourish, they exploit their positions to enforce their own agenda on rocketry at large.
this is corrupt, and an abuse of power
and your reaction is to give the victims the finger
nice, Ray. Is this what your mentors are telling you to post, or is this your own disdain for rocketeers who don't tow the party line?

in no way, shape, or form is it a "HPR agenda". You, and apparently the one writing the material on your teleprompter, have no clue what "the advancement ... of amateur high power rocketry" looks like!
not a clue
- iz
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I wrote:

<<what liability? is that the same liability a DMV examiner has when a licensed driver has an accident? or the same liability the states licensing board has when a professional's work results in property loss or injury?>>
You're still making a faulty comparison. A driver's license or license from a state board are issued by a government agency. High power certification is issued by private organizations.
<<or are you saying that there is a liability for the org when even paid members engage in indy activities, which by virue of not being under org supervision are suspect>>
Anything outside the scope of the high power certification is outside the scope of TRA and thus has no connection to TRA on which to base liability. Providing certification to people involved in those kinds of activities creates such a connection and puts TRA at risk.
<<ahem! John Cato... blah blah blah...>>
Everytime you invoke that name you tarnish you credibility even further.
<<TRA did not do "all the groundwork to make these types of rocketry activities legal". Individuals did.>>
Yeah, the same individuals that you endlessly attack.
<<Where are they now, Ray?>>
Most of them are still in TRA.
<<review your history, Ray. Your naivete is shocking!>>
Get your history from a more reliable source. You've been fed nothing but BS and you're swallowing it like it was candy.
<<TRA/NAR for all practical purposes currently hold a joint monopoly on user (and motor) certification. >>
So start your own certifying organization. Or get ARSA to do it.
<<Is this what your mentors are telling you to post, or is this your own disdain for rocketeers who don't tow the party line?>>
My disdain is for Johnny Come Lately cretins who's only talent is making trouble and causing harm to the hobby. And NO ONE tells me what to say! We TRA members are not the mindless sheep that you think we are.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (RayDunakin) wrote:

With State legislature appointed AHJ status.
Underwriters Laboratories is not a government agency and it has legal standing.
snip endless bullcrap.
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.